NSA reforms fail in the senate

[zinfamous]

The Dems are actually thanking Republicans on this one. They get to keep all the spy programs and take none of the heat.

Or Obama could totally prove he is for the freedom act by executive actioning away duties from the NSA. It's the trending way to deal with the important issues of the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

Ronald Reagan 381 12287 - 12667 George H. W. Bush 166 12668 - 12833 William J. Clinton 364 12834 - 13197 George W. Bush 291 13198 - 13488 Barack Obama 193 13489 - 13681... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#cite_note-1

As for Clinton, that's 364 executive orders under 6 years of Republican control of Congress, to Obama's 193 under 4 years of split control and 2 years of Dem control

...But of course Barack Obama is the tyrant.

Oh shit, look at Regan! What a fucking monarchist dictator cockknocker! His corpse should be dug up and prosecuted for treason, like was once done with hated popes. ...right?

 

[Matt1970]

Again, nothing but brain-dead rationalization on your part. But not surprising as you're regarded as only having a couple IQ points above McOwned. It's a filibuster proof majority, not a veto proof majority. And obama patriot actand anti Gitmo. He had the political capital to push both of those straight off and he refused. It would've been the perfect time for the dems to drive another nail in the reps coffin, but they liked the power that the Patriot act gave them, so there's no way that they were gonna push its demise when they had the means to do so.

Obama was only anti-spying to get elected. Here is some nice before and after.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qptZOMEwFXM

 

[Genx87]

Small govt party strikes again!

 

[fskimospy]

You can take all the bets you like, I don't care to play. There is a chance even if small. There will have to be names which directly support it, no weaksauce excuse for an inadequate bill. If as you suppose it passes then there is always another chance for a similar (and hopefully better bill). Considering your perspective on the Republicans being utterly obstructive of Obama you should be hopeful at least a bit. In short there is a chance now however unlikely you see it to be. Otherwise there is none. You offered two choices and I picked the third.

My argument is that if you're against both the patriot act and NSA spying, you probably can't get rid of the patriot act but this was your chance to get rid of the NSA spying. Seems like a risk worth taking.

 

[Cozarkian]

Uh what?

I previously posted two explanations that could motivate someone to vote against debate on the Patriot Act even if they felt it needed to be changed. You demonstrated that you failed to understand those arguments by asserting he is either for or against it and drawing an invalid conclusion that voting against debate means he is for it.

Thus, I created a non-political example to illustrate the arguments I previously raised through parallel reasoning. The point, again, was to show that "You are either for or against it. If you vote against debate, you must be for it" is an invalid argument according to the rules of logic.

I'll try one more time to help you understand. A politician could vote against debating a law he/she believes needs changed if he/she has a strong reason to believe that the debate will result in a worse situation than the status quo.

Alternatively, a politician might vote against debate if he/she is fairly certain that the "no debate" votes will ultimately win and that voting in favor of debate would anger people whose support he/she might need on other topics in the future.

Based on the above, examining whether a person voted for or against debate is insufficient to conclude whether that person is in favor or against keeping the particular law.

 

[Cozarkian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

Ronald Reagan 381 12287 - 12667 George H. W. Bush 166 12668 - 12833 William J. Clinton 364 12834 - 13197 George W. Bush 291 13198 - 13488 Barack Obama 193 13489 - 13681...

As for Clinton, that's 364 executive orders under 6 years of Republican control of Congress, to Obama's 193 under 4 years of split control and 2 years of Dem control

...But of course Barack Obama is the tyrant.

Oh shit, look at Regan! What a fucking monarchist dictator cockknocker! His corpse should be dug up and prosecuted for treason, like was once done with hated popes. ...right?

Don't confuse quantity with quality. Who is more dangerous. A person that sets off 1000 smoke bombs, or a person who sets off one bomb that levels a highly populated building?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My argument is that if you're against both the patriot act and NSA spying, you probably can't get rid of the patriot act but this was your chance to get rid of the NSA spying. Seems like a risk worth taking.

We'll have to disagree since I don't believe that this was "the" chance. If the Patriot Act is unaltered as you believe then this can be done again, perhaps shortly after an affirmative vote being pushed through. Remember, the public is fickle, but the PA doesn't seem to be the stuff that dreams were made of just a few years ago.

 

[zinfamous]

Don't confuse quantity with quality. Who is more dangerous. A person that sets off 1000 smoke bombs, or a person who sets off one bomb that levels a highly populated building?

The quantity of the demonstrably poor-quality candidates that Reagan placed in the judiciary during his tenure is certainly alarming, and this country is currently paying for those poor choices.

And don't say this isn't about quantity--next time I hear some numbskull bloviating about the ALARMING NUMBER OF OBAMA HUSSEIN'S executive orders, I will be sure to have a laugh at your expense.

 

[Fern]

By the way, if Rand Paul approved of curtailing the NSA but not of extending the patriot act, why didn't he just submit an amendment that would do just that? Would have been easy to do.

In this Senate?

Geez, Reid hardly allows Dem amendments.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Well, this was simply a vote to bring this bill to debate. Had it passed he then could have added amendments. The fact that he voted against even bringing the bill up for debate is quite puzzling.

Bad calculation IMO (and apparently his).

If he had voted for cloture and his amendment either wasn't allowed a vote or failed he'd be stuck with this watered down bill that, IIRC, extends the P.A.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Lol! That's what this vote was about! The senate voted to not have a debate!




I know that I don't always make my points clear but am I really not explaining this clearly?

I'm pretty sure the point of getting 60 votes is to cut-off debate so it can be taken to vote (plus amendments added etc.) If so, you have it backwards.

Fern

 

[Fern]

The dems aren't all aligned on this issue, some support the patriot act (I'd probably say a majority) and others don't support it. The fact that Feinsteins reasoning for supporting such a bill is to get compromise rather than seeing it not be reauthorized (do you honestly see that happening? I don't), doesn't bother me. I'd rather have a compromiser who is willing to concede to fixing some issues rather than someone who sticks to their guns and who disregards the faults in their position.

From what I read this bill was an improvement, but too watered down for those who oppose the NSA spying.

Feinstein supports the current situation. Her flip to support this bill in an effort to protect the P.A. is not something laudable IMO.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Again, nothing but brain-dead rationalization on your part. But not surprising as you're regarded as only having a couple IQ points above McOwned. It's a filibuster proof majority, not a veto proof majority. And Obama was anti Patriot act and anti Gitmo. He had the political capital to push both of those straight off and he refused. It would've been the perfect time for the dems to drive another nail in the reps coffin, but they liked the power that the Patriot act gave them, so there's no way that they were gonna push its demise when they had the means to do so.

If Snowden is to be believed domestic spying has been greatly expanded under Obama. I'm referring to a policy change initiated in late 2011 presumably based upon a (new) legal position by the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel in the Exec branch).

Obama may have claimed in campaigning that he opposed the P.A./domestic spying, but the facts appear to indicate otherwise.

Fern

 

[Cozarkian]

And don't say this isn't about quantity--next time I hear some numbskull bloviating about the ALARMING NUMBER OF OBAMA HUSSEIN'S executive orders, I will be sure to have a laugh at your expense.

Just because there are going to be some ignorant inidviduals that think Obama is a dictator because of the number of executive orders, doesn't mean there aren't also political analysts and/or political hacks that criticize Obama because they believe the content of the executive orders are closer to legislating from the White House than the orders of prior presidents.

In fact, I suspect many of those who think there are too many executive orders have their opinions because they heard others complain about Obama's executive orders but didn't understand why the orders were being criticized.

 

[Fern]

I find that the public's general understanding of the patriot act is problematic. The act has a number of provisions that a deeply, deeply, dislike, but the majority of it is actually quite a good idea. You don't hear about the good parts, though. I would like to amend the patriot act to remove the parts of it that are really an affront to civil liberties, but to let it expire as a whole? No thanks.
-snip-

Seems to me the Obama administration has perverted the original P.A. to expend into domestic spying. I don't recall that being the intent of the act. The architect of the original act(s) says it wasn't. An effective amendment may be difficult to craft since it seems the legal basis for recent expansions has not been disclosed. IIRC, the OLC's (lawyer's) memo has not been released to Congress. What would specifically be amended to outlaw what is not authorized in the first place?

Fern

 

[Fern]

It's not a false choice at all. Do you genuinely believe the patriot act won't be reauthorized? Seriously? Taking bets now.

Feinstein appears to fear that it won't.

It seems to be that the Senate has been more supportive of the P.A. etc than the House.

It might be reauthorization could possibly be in trouble in the House. The timing of this makes me wonder if the extra seats picked up in the House don't bode well for reauthorization so perhaps the supporters of the P.A. wanted to jam it through now, before the new Congress is seated in a few months. IIRC, several of the Repub seats in the House were won by TEA Party types, who general oppose domestic spying etc.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

I previously posted two explanations that could motivate someone to vote against debate on the Patriot Act even if they felt it needed to be changed. You demonstrated that you failed to understand those arguments by asserting he is either for or against it and drawing an invalid conclusion that voting against debate means he is for it.

Thus, I created a non-political example to illustrate the arguments I previously raised through parallel reasoning. The point, again, was to show that "You are either for or against it. If you vote against debate, you must be for it" is an invalid argument according to the rules of logic.

I'll try one more time to help you understand. A politician could vote against debating a law he/she believes needs changed if he/she has a strong reason to believe that the debate will result in a worse situation than the status quo.

Alternatively, a politician might vote against debate if he/she is fairly certain that the "no debate" votes will ultimately win and that voting in favor of debate would anger people whose support he/she might need on other topics in the future.

Based on the above, examining whether a person voted for or against debate is insufficient to conclude whether that person is in favor or against keeping the particular law.

Ok, I'm following you now but I'll say it's a bullshit excuse by politicians who aren't willing to make tough votes.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm pretty sure the point of getting 60 votes is to cut-off debate so it can be taken to vote (plus amendments added etc.) If so, you have it backwards.

Fern

No it's not, it's simply to allow debate and amendments, in fact the only way to end debate is to vote via a simple majority or if someone filibusters then a vote of 2/3 is needed.

 

[ivwshane]

Seems to me the Obama administration has perverted the original P.A. to expend into domestic spying. I don't recall that being the intent of the act. The architect of the original act(s) says it wasn't. An effective amendment may be difficult to craft since it seems the legal basis for recent expansions has not been disclosed. IIRC, the OLC's (lawyer's) memo has not been released to Congress. What would specifically be amended to outlaw what is not authorized in the first place?

Fern

No, it's the CIA, NSA, etc that have perverted the act and it's Congress's duty to reign them in. Feinstein wasn't worried about the patriot act not being reauthorized, she was worried about it being reauthorized without any restrictions added.

 

[ivwshane]

If Snowden is to be believed domestic spying has been greatly expanded under Obama. I'm referring to a policy change initiated in late 2011 presumably based upon a (new) legal position by the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel in the Exec branch).

Obama may have claimed in campaigning that he opposed the P.A./domestic spying, but the facts appear to indicate otherwise.

Fern

Obama has never opposed the patriot act. He may have said it needs to have oversight but he has always been for it.

 

[Fern]

No it's not, it's simply to allow debate and amendments, in fact the only way to end debate is to vote via a simple majority or if someone filibusters then a vote of 2/3 is needed.

The 60 votes is for cloture, or ending/limiting debate:

At the time, a two-thirds vote, or sixty-seven senators, was required to invoke cloture and cut off debate in the Senate.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilRightsAct1964.htm

cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

When the Senate majority leader wants the Senate to move to a vote on a legislative matter or nomination, he generally has two options. He can seek the unanimous consent of his colleagues to bring the Senate to a vote. By definition, even a single senator’s objection (or a threat to do so) blocks the Senate from proceeding to a vote. In that case, the leader’s only option in most cases involves filing a cloture motion, a move that starts a timetable for bringing the Senate to a vote on cutting off debate (aka voting on cloture). If 60 senators vote aye, cloture is invoked on the underlying matter and the Senate proceeds to a vote (after 30 hours).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...nate-cloture-votes-tell-us-about-obstruction/

You have it backwards.

Fern

 

[Fern]

No, it's the CIA, NSA, etc that have perverted the act and it's Congress's duty to reign them in. Feinstein wasn't worried about the patriot act not being reauthorized, she was worried about it being reauthorized without any restrictions added.

The "CIA, NSA etc" are under the Exec branch. I.e., the Obama admin.

The OLC (Office of Legal Council), which is also under the Exec branch/Obama admin, provides the legal guidance to such agencies.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, it's the CIA, NSA, etc that have perverted the act and it's Congress's duty to reign them in. Feinstein wasn't worried about the patriot act not being reauthorized, she was worried about it being reauthorized without any restrictions added.

Hardly.

From the Sacramento Bee

The law authorizing the bulk collection, a provision of the post-9/11 USA Patriot Act, will expire in June 2015. That means Congress would have to pass legislation re-authorizing the program for it to continue.

For that reason, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, abandoned her previous opposition to the bill. "If we do not pass the bill, we will lose this program," Feinstein said on the Senate floor.

You have this completely wrong.

 

[bradley]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

Ronald Reagan 381 12287 - 12667 George H. W. Bush 166 12668 - 12833 William J. Clinton 364 12834 - 13197 George W. Bush 291 13198 - 13488 Barack Obama 193 13489 - 13681... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#cite_note-1

As for Clinton, that's 364 executive orders under 6 years of Republican control of Congress, to Obama's 193 under 4 years of split control and 2 years of Dem control

...But of course Barack Obama is the tyrant.

Oh shit, look at Regan! What a fucking monarchist dictator cockknocker! His corpse should be dug up and prosecuted for treason, like was once done with hated popes. ...right?

Reagan's 1981 NSA EO created a backdoor that would eventually allow spying to take place against Americans, forfeiting their 4th Amendment protections.

Clinton's UN EO allowed world treaties from outside the US to be implemented within without Congressional approval.

GW Bush's Patriot Act EO further allowed secret watchlists, wiretaps and investigations on private activities of Americans, which was extended under the Obama Administration. Most likely the Patriot Act will be extended a second time, originally opposed by Senator Obama.

Obama's NDAA broadly allows the US to be under martial law in peacetime and gives supreme authority without any Congressional oversight, which greatly expanded upon the Patriot Act. It was secretly signed on New Year's Eve, while most Americans were busy being distracted.

Obama has continued and exponentially expanded upon this EO tyranny. Play left-right favorites at your own peril.

 

[ivwshane]

Hardly.

From the Sacramento Bee




You have this completely wrong.

I wish you would link your sources. Anyway I hope you are right but I seriously doubt the PA won't get reauthorized. I now understand your tiny string of hope you are holding onto.